London Borough of Lambeth (202438366)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202438366

London Borough of Lambeth

23 July 2025

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould and the associated repair.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The property is a 2-bedroom flat on the second floor of the building. The landlord is a local council and was aware of the vulnerabilities of the household.
The resident raised her complaint on 2 October 2024. She told the landlord that 2 of her children had sickle cell disease and the mould in the property was affecting their health. She said her living conditions were having a “major impact” on her mental health. She said:
1. She initially reported the damp and mould in January 2024 and her email was returned undelivered. Its surveyor attended on 31 January 2024. It found the gutter was the cause of the problem and it would arrange work. She had not been contacted since.
2. The damp and mould had returned. It started on the bedroom ceiling and spread to other rooms. Water was “streaming” down her bedroom wall near her bed where she slept with her 3 young children. She was unable to move the bed due to insufficient space.
3. She attached photos to show the condition of the property.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 29 October 2024. It said:
1. It completed a roof inspection on 10 October 2024. It required access to a neighbouring property to complete work and arranged for this to take place on 4 November 2024.
2. The resident refused access for it to complete a mould inspection on 11 October 2024. It said it would need to attend for an initial inspection to assess the scope of works needed for a mould wash. It advised the resident to provide access as per the terms of her tenancy.
3. It raised work to repair or renew the bathroom extractor fan. Its contractor would contact the resident to arrange an appointment.
4. It apologised for the service received and thanked the resident for bringing the matter to its attention.
The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and escalated her complaint on 12 November 2024. She said it cleaned the gutters on 4 November 2024 but had not said what it would do to help with the internal condition of the property. She said there was more mould in different places and she was worried about the ceiling collapsing. She told it of fungus growing on the ceiling and water streaming down walls. She asked the landlord to consider a permanent decant or a payment of £5,000 to resolve her complaint. She attached photos of the property showing a damaged ceiling with mould and peeling paint/plaster.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 17 December 2024. It said:
1. It completed gutter works on 11 November 2024.
2. It arranged for work to the bathroom extractor fan for 27 December 2024.
3. It arranged a mould wash for 2 January 2025.
4. It partially upheld the resident’s complaint and said it would continue to monitor the situation to ensure the repairs were completed.
The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and asked this Service to consider her complaint further. It is understood that the resident started a disrepair claim in December 2024 and a joint inspection was completed in March 2025. This Service has not been provided with evidence to show the matter went to court.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has told the landlord, and this Service, of concerns about her families health. In particular, she has mentioned how 2 of her children have sickle cell disease and how the mould in the property was affecting their health. The resident has also described the impact of the situation on her overall health and wellbeing.
The Ombudsman sympathises with the resident and her family. It is understandable that she has concerns about the impact of their living conditions on their health. It is important to explain that this Service cannot establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions, or lack of action, have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited for consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim.
However, the Ombudsman will give consideration to the general impact of the living conditions on the resident and consider what the landlord did.

Handling of reports of damp and mould and the associated repair

The tenancy agreement says the landlord is responsible for the maintenance of the structure and outside of the property including gutters, amongst other things.
The landlord’s repairs and damp policy from August 2023 explains its repairs priority timeframes. It lists clearing gutters as a planned repair which it aims to complete within 90 days. It says it prioritises the removal of mould and will carry out the initial wash and treatment within 7 days. The landlord has a ‘Damp Charter’ outlining its commitments which include, amongst other things;
1. Quick diagnosis by conducting an inspection with 28 days, or sooner.
2. Ongoing support by staying in touch and giving tips to minimise condensation and advise where help may be available.
3. It has a rapid-response mould removal and treatment service.
The landlord’s vulnerable tenants guidance explains it will prioritise repairs and signpost vulnerable residents for support. It says tenants should be supported appropriately. It will carry out a vulnerability assessment and record those on its system and use this to decide if additional services are required.
The landlord’s notes show that on 20 November 2023 it rescheduled a mould wash treatment for the property during school holidays. However, it did not complete this until 22 January 2024. While it was reasonable for the landlord to accommodate the resident’s availability, there is no evidence to show it made attempts to book an appointment prior to January 2024. This meant it took around 2 months to complete a mould wash. This was unreasonable in the circumstances.
The evidence shows that the landlord was aware of blocked gutters in June 2023. There is no evidence to show the landlord took any action in relation to this at that time. This was not appropriate.
The resident has said the landlord completed a survey on 31 January 2024. The landlord has not provided a copy of this survey. However, the time taken of around 6 months to inspect the roof/gutters was not appropriate.
The landlord raised work for the roof/guttering in February 2024. While it completed further mould wash treatments in February and April 2024, it did not complete the roof/guttering work in line with its planned repair timeframes (90 days) and did not keep the resident updated during this time. This was not appropriate.
The evidence shows that in June 2024, the landlord was aware that scaffolding was erected but roof/guttering work had not been completed. The landlord’s notes demonstrate that it was not effectively monitoring the work at that time. Its failure to monitor and complete the roof/guttering work meant the resident had to report the ongoing guttering issue to it again in July 2024.
It took the landlord until 10 October 2024, after the resident’s complaint, to inspect the roof. Its roof inspection found “moss and weed growth causing water ingress to the property”. It then took until 4 November 2024 to complete the guttering work. The timeframe of around 17 months since it was aware of the issue (June 2023) and 10 months since it raised work (February 2024) to complete work was not appropriate and significantly exceeded its planned repair timeframe.
While the landlord’s roof inspection from October 2024 established the guttering issue caused “water ingress to the property” it did not explain how it would assist the resident with the internal condition of the property. This was a missed opportunity by the landlord and meant the resident had to contact it again (in November 2024) about the internal condition of the property. Despite the landlord’s commitments to handling damp and mould, it took until March 2025 to complete a mould wash. This was not appropriate.
While the landlord did eventually complete a roof inspection, the evidence shows it missed opportunities to conduct a damp and mould inspection. This was also not appropriate.
It is noted that a joint inspection was completed in March 2025 as part of a disrepair claim, this was after the landlord had completed the roof work. The internal condition was deemed “poor”, mould was said to have been caused by condensation and the roof was missing areas of insulation. It is unclear if the landlord has completed further work relating to this and if the issue with mould has since been resolved.
Overall, the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould at the property was not appropriate. It missed opportunities to proactively monitor work and took 17 months (June 2023 to November 2024) to complete guttering work, despite the resident’s repeated contact about this.
The landlord failed to consider how it could support the resident in light of the vulnerabilities of the household. It has not provided evidence to show it conducted a risk assessment or that it considered the additional services, including support, mentioned within its vulnerable tenants guidance. It also failed to prioritise the work in light of what it knew about the household. While its stage 2 response accepted some failings, the landlord made no attempt to put things right or address the detriment caused to the resident.
It is acknowledged that the landlord did complete mould wash treatment which would have helped improve the resident’s living conditions, albeit for a short time. It is also accepted that it did replace a bathroom extractor fan in December 2024. However, the landlord should have taken steps to complete work sooner to demonstrate it acted in accordance with its damp charter commitments, in it acting quickly and providing support.
When considering the failings combined, the landlord’s handling of the matter amounts to maladministration. Had the landlord not completed mould wash treatment and roof/guttering work, the failings here would have amounted to severe maladministration.
The landlord’s failure to provide copies of its inspections and conduct a damp and mould inspection sooner have made it difficult to determine the full extent of the condition of the property. However, the photos provided by the resident show mould growth within the property. As such it is reasonable to conclude that the property condition would have had some impact on the resident’s enjoyment of her home and the landlord’s failings would have adversely affected her.
When deciding an appropriate remedy, this Service’s remedies guidance has been considered along with the landlord’s failings and the impact this would have had on the resident, especially in light of the vulnerabilities of the household. When considering this, a compensation amount of £600 has been decided as appropriate to acknowledge the impact of the landlord’s failings. This amount falls between the maladministration and severe maladministration banding of this Service’s remedies guidance and has been decided as appropriate in the circumstances.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould and the associated repair.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Arrange for a manager to apologise to the resident for the failings identified within this report. This should be in writing.
2. Pay the resident a total of £600 compensation for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its failings.
3. Establish any outstanding issues at the property and its planned approach in response to any concerns raised by the resident.
4. Provide this Service with evidence of compliance with the above mentioned orders.